Mechanics Have Reason To Be Upset

----------------
On 7/7/2003 6:43:36 AM Hopeful wrote:

KCFLYER:

You mention that Management and Labor should be working together to solve problems?

How about shared sacrifices for starters?

Mechanics lost about $20,000.00 a year when you include loss of holiday pay, the 17% paycut and one week vacation. Management took only a $4500.00 average paycut for a supervisor earning about $60,000.00,and no loss of sick and vacation time.

And how much do those management employees make for every hour over 40 that they put in during a week? "Mangement" in those ranks usually translates into "exempt" for payroll purposes - someone workng 60 hours a week is paid for 40.

As I have stated before, it''s not a matter of who represents you, but it''s time to pay the TWU back by voting in another union so the TWU cannot use your own union dues money to buy the knife that stabs you in the back!

Fine - vote out the TWU - but save all this "AMFA is wonderful., AMFA is great, AMFA will make your life better, AMFA will improve your sex life" stuff . Any union is going to have a few warts going it - don''t try to gloss over them - some things might be better...some things might be worse. But...the absolute worst thing that can happen to RV4 and the others is that AMFA is voted in. When those warts start to make themselves known, how will they respond to those who might criticize that they were sold a bill of goods? One of the things they might address is how does AMFA differ from any of the others when there are unions for Flight Attendants and ground ops folks who just happen to share the same mailing address and attornies as the AMFA? Could it be that they are pulling some wool over your eyes? You know - selling the mechanics on a union just for them, while union leadership is being tugged into a battle to represent flight attendants at ABC airlines? Whats the difference between having the TWU, IAM, or Teamsters represent mechanics with a "mechanics division" of their union?

----------------​
 
From reading on this board lately, it would appear that KCFlyer the non-unionized worker, is jealous of labors gains?

Management is also granted comp time for their over 40 hrs., at least in TUL.

The difference is that under AMFA their is democracy and the leadership all the way to the top are held accountable.

If AMFA is not the answer, then we can remove them.

A mechanics division has been tried and failed. You still have the same TWU International leadership and structure.

Why are you defending the TWU?
 
"Whats the difference between having the TWU, IAM, or Teamsters represent mechanics with a "mechanics division" of their union?"

A mechanics division at those unions always had a large tail wagging them. So far mechanics divisions have only been a name change, have never addressed the problems that caused them to be created in the first place, and are usually a last ditch plea by the incumbent union to stave off a representation change.
 
----------------
On 7/7/2003 9:15:04 AM Buck wrote:

From reading on this board lately, it would appear that KCFlyer the non-unionized worker, is jealous of labors gains?

Moi? I haven''t been asked to give up anything. Contrary to what RV "Oliver Stone" 4 might want you to believe, I don''t work for AA or TWU. It''s just that when you guys point out that "management" isn''t taking as big a cut as you, then it''s not sharing the sacrifice. If their sacrifice is better than yours, why not bid for a management position and you won''t have to sacrifice as much? Could it be that "comp time" doesn''t put any more food on the table?

Management is also granted comp time for their over 40 hrs., at least in TUL.

And they take it whenever they want it, right?

The difference is that under AMFA their is democracy and the leadership all the way to the top are held accountable.

And in a democracy, one side always loses. YOu think that being on the losing end of a vote will be gladly accepted by those who so adamantly opposed what was voted in?

If AMFA is not the answer, then we can remove them.

That''s true - if there is still a company that needs to be unionized left.

A mechanics division has been tried and failed. You still have the same TWU International leadership and structure.

And what happens when the FA section of those unions that share the same address as AMFA draws greater attention from the union leadership? Maybe that won''t happen...then again - what if it does?

Why are you defending the TWU?

I''m not - I''m just trying to point out that not everything will be a bed of roses, as RV4 seems to think electing the AMFA will do for AA. Even if every mechanic has a "voice" - let''s say AMFA is voted in at AA tomorrow. Their reps will now go to managment and management will tell them the same thing that they are telling the TWU - what is their response? What happens if they are told that the company has to have concessions - and AMFA puts it to the members for a vote (a nice, but time consuming process - which an airline bleeding money every day can ill afford) and 51% of the members vote FOR concessions - will the other 49% be happy with that decision? Will they still be best buds with their coworker who was in the 51% - or will there be a little bit of resentment towards them? That sounds really healthy to me - to be upset with the company, to be upset with your coworker, to be upset with your union. That sounds like a beautiful life, doesn''t it?

----------------​
 
----------------
On 7/7/2003 10:24:57 AM KCFlyer wrote:




----------------
On 7/7/2003 9:15:04 AM Buck wrote:

From reading on this board lately, it would appear that KCFlyer the non-unionized worker, is jealous of labors gains?

Moi? I haven''t been asked to give up anything. Contrary to what RV "Oliver Stone" 4 might want you to believe, I don''t work for AA or TWU. It''s just that when you guys point out that "management" isn''t taking as big a cut as you, then it''s not sharing the sacrifice. If their sacrifice is better than yours, why not bid for a management position and you won''t have to sacrifice as much? Could it be that "comp time" doesn''t put any more food on the table?

It is obvious that you don''t work for AA, TWU or appear to be affiliated with unionism. "Shared Sacrifice" was the company in action. It is their terminology. It also appears that you exude a socialistic position when it comes to the workforce whether unionized or not. People join unions to make collective gains, those workers in the lower rank of management have yet to exercise this right. Could it be that "Comp Time" is also a management idea?

Management is also granted comp time for their over 40 hrs., at least in TUL.

And they take it whenever they want it, right?

No, they do not. Is that the unionized workers fault?

The difference is that under AMFA their is democracy and the leadership all the way to the top are held accountable.

And in a democracy, one side always loses. YOu think that being on the losing end of a vote will be gladly accepted by those who so adamantly opposed what was voted in?

No one gladly loses. But that is the result of democracy. Do you not like the idea of democracy? Do you not like having the freedom to choose?
Again you appear to hold a socialistic position?

If AMFA is not the answer, then we can remove them.

That''s true - if there is still a company that needs to be unionized left.

I see you blame the mismanagement of the company on the union.

A mechanics division has been tried and failed. You still have the same TWU International leadership and structure.

And what happens when the FA section of those unions that share the same address as AMFA draws greater attention from the union leadership? Maybe that won''t happen...then again - what if it does?

You mean like all of the industrial unions sharing the AFL-CIO address or that many companies file their businesses in Delaware?
I am not concerned with what an independent Flight Attendant union does or where their address is.

Why are you defending the TWU?

I''m not - I''m just trying to point out that not everything will be a bed of roses, as RV4 seems to think electing the AMFA will do for AA. Even if every mechanic has a "voice" - let''s say AMFA is voted in at AA tomorrow. Their reps will now go to managment and management will tell them the same thing that they are telling the TWU - what is their response? What happens if they are told that the company has to have concessions - and AMFA puts it to the members for a vote (a nice, but time consuming process - which an airline bleeding money every day can ill afford) and 51% of the members vote FOR concessions - will the other 49% be happy with that decision? Will they still be best buds with their coworker who was in the 51% - or will there be a little bit of resentment towards them? That sounds really healthy to me - to be upset with the company, to be upset with your coworker, to be upset with your union. That sounds like a beautiful life, doesn''t it?

----------------​

This is where you fail to understand the difference between craft unionism and industrial unionism. Under AMFA it is only about the mechanic and related as directed by the National Mediation Board.

Since you are so filled with what ifs?

What if American had the opportunity to negotiate it''s labor contracts based on supply and demand of a given work group? What if American attempted to wage match with it''s competitors in every work group?

----------------​
 
----------------
On 7/7/2003 11:53:40 AM Buck wrote:




----------------
On 7/7/2003 10:24:57 AM KCFlyer wrote:




----------------
On 7/7/2003 9:15:04 AM Buck wrote:

From reading on this board lately, it would appear that KCFlyer the non-unionized worker, is jealous of labors gains?

Moi? I haven''t been asked to give up anything. Contrary to what RV "Oliver Stone" 4 might want you to believe, I don''t work for AA or TWU. It''s just that when you guys point out that "management" isn''t taking as big a cut as you, then it''s not sharing the sacrifice. If their sacrifice is better than yours, why not bid for a management position and you won''t have to sacrifice as much? Could it be that "comp time" doesn''t put any more food on the table?

It is obvious that you don''t work for AA, TWU or appear to be affiliated with unionism. "Shared Sacrifice" was the company in action. It is their terminology. It also appears that you exude a socialistic position when it comes to the workforce whether unionized or not. People join unions to make collective gains, those workers in the lower rank of management have yet to exercise this right. Could it be that "Comp Time" is also a management idea?

That doesn''t answer the question...if "management" has a better deal, why not try to get into one of those positions - if it''s because they are not unionized and therefore don''t have the benefit of those gains, then the "sacrifice" for them is as bad, if not worse, than the sacrifice for the unionized workforce.

Management is also granted comp time for their over 40 hrs., at least in TUL.

And they take it whenever they want it, right?

No, they do not. Is that the unionized workers fault?

Not at all. But it isn''t an "offset" to the "less sacrifice" that you said managment workers have made.

The difference is that under AMFA their is democracy and the leadership all the way to the top are held accountable.

And in a democracy, one side always loses. YOu think that being on the losing end of a vote will be gladly accepted by those who so adamantly opposed what was voted in?

No one gladly loses. But that is the result of democracy. Do you not like the idea of democracy? Do you not like having the freedom to choose?
Again you appear to hold a socialistic position?

Oh yes, I like a democracy...you know, Bush lost the popular vote, yet he''s sitting in the white house. And as one who did not vote for Bush, I guess I have to accept him. But there are still a lot of folks who claim he "stole" the election. Now, take presidential politics out and substitute a union election - how many will accept a vote that doesn''t go their way, and how many will only be incited to be a pain in the a$$ to the "majority" who voted for the "winning" side?

If AMFA is not the answer, then we can remove them.

That''s true - if there is still a company that needs to be unionized left.

I see you blame the mismanagement of the company on the union.

Did I? I don''t see where I said that. I only made that statement because a company can continue to lose money for only so long. By the time you''d have to have yet another vote to determine who represents you, the airline could have just shut the doors.

A mechanics division has been tried and failed. You still have the same TWU International leadership and structure.

And what happens when the FA section of those unions that share the same address as AMFA draws greater attention from the union leadership? Maybe that won''t happen...then again - what if it does?

You mean like all of the industrial unions sharing the AFL-CIO address or that many companies file their businesses in Delaware?
I am not concerned with what an independent Flight Attendant union does or where their address is.

They don''t all file from the same address in Delaware, and they don''t all have the same law firm representing them in Delaware. What I am saying is that it really really looks like the AMFA is just an "arm" of a "holding company" union...many different corporations reporting to the "holding company". It''s really no different than if TWU or IAM spun off a TWUAM "company" for airline mechanics and a TWUFA for flight attendants - they report to the "holding company". I''d only suggest that someone check into the "coincidence" of these different unions sharing the same, or very similar "home base".

Why are you defending the TWU?

I''m not - I''m just trying to point out that not everything will be a bed of roses, as RV4 seems to think electing the AMFA will do for AA. Even if every mechanic has a "voice" - let''s say AMFA is voted in at AA tomorrow. Their reps will now go to managment and management will tell them the same thing that they are telling the TWU - what is their response? What happens if they are told that the company has to have concessions - and AMFA puts it to the members for a vote (a nice, but time consuming process - which an airline bleeding money every day can ill afford) and 51% of the members vote FOR concessions - will the other 49% be happy with that decision? Will they still be best buds with their coworker who was in the 51% - or will there be a little bit of resentment towards them? That sounds really healthy to me - to be upset with the company, to be upset with your coworker, to be upset with your union. That sounds like a beautiful life, doesn''t it?

----------------​

This is where you fail to understand the difference between craft unionism and industrial unionism. Under AMFA it is only about the mechanic and related as directed by the National Mediation Board.

Since you are so filled with what ifs?

What if American had the opportunity to negotiate it''s labor contracts based on supply and demand of a given work group? What if American attempted to wage match with it''s competitors in every work group?

Better yet, what if, rather than saying "We''d be better off in bankruptcy", a union offered a counterproposal with a "business plan" of how their proposal would benefit the company? Think about how a supply and demand system would benefit you versus a "socialistic" system of collective bargaining. After all, why pay Buck more than Fred if Buck is twice the mechanic that Fred is? Instead, Buck and Fred are paid the same amount under collective bargaining. I''m sorry - but that system is far more socialistic that anything I believe in.
----------------​


----------------​
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #203
----------------
On 7/7/2003 5:52:18 AM KCFlyer wrote:




----------------
On 7/7/2003 5:17:06 AM RV4 wrote:


I believe KCFlyer may actually be one of those appointed, untouchable, in-for-life, problems that the TWU is weighted with.

----------------​
Sorry Mr Stone (odd that you mention him in your signature), I don't belong to a union and I certainly don't work for a union. But it's apparant that anyone who disagrees with you must be a lacky for the TWU. And you didn't answer my question (not that I expected that you would), but I'll try again - what would you do if your peers voted for concessions and you voted against them? Would you just say "well, that's democracy in action" and head back to work, or would you treat those "yes" voters like a scab? Would you tell your buddies (who of course voted "no" to any concessions) that those kool-aid drinking idiots are to blame. And would the union that even suggested the vote (and had that vote go opposite what you wanted) suddenly become "the company union"? Inquiring minds want to know.

And TDR, I'm not really baiting RV4 - I'm just trying to "balance" his posts. If you read them, life with the AMFA is all sunshine and sweet dreams - he won't address what some of their policies can mean, especially to the junior mechanics.
----------------
​
I can accept a majority rule decision. Can you Mr Little? And yes, that majority rule might have led to more junior mechanics being laid-off. You seem to ignore the fact that the TWU allowed 1371 junior mechanics to be stripped of their job protection and they hit the street, while the rest were sent to shops without their license and skill pay, in addition to a 17.5% base paycut.. Before you start spewing that is better than no job at all, let me tell you, recently some mechanics I know that bumped to OSM have now changed their mind and have now accepted the lay-off and left AA anyway. GOOD FOR THEM.

6-7 Year Experienced A&P Mechanics making $16.75 per hour should be classified as CRIMINAL!
 
----------------
On 7/7/2003 4:52:46 PM RV4 wrote:




I can accept a majority rule decision. Can you Mr Little? And yes, that majority rule might have led to more junior mechanics being laid-off.

Now for a different scenario for you RV4 - hypothetical situation - AMFA is voted in, prognosis for AA still the same - union approaches membership and asks them if they want to vote on concessions. They choose to vote. The vote passes. Still happy with the majority rule decision?

BTW, thanks for acknowledging that the AMFA may not be the best route for a junior mechanic who really does feel that some pay is better than no pay.

----------------
​
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #205
----------------
On 7/7/2003 6:08:14 PM KCFlyer wrote:





Now for a different scenario for you RV4 - hypothetical situation - AMFA is voted in, prognosis for AA still the same - union approaches membership and asks them if they want to vote on concessions. They choose to vote. The vote passes. Still happy with the majority rule decision?

BTW, thanks for acknowledging that the AMFA may not be the best route for a junior mechanic who really does feel that some pay is better than no pay.

----------------
----------------
​
I don't get it? The Union is the Membership, how do they approach themselves, er uh, how do we approach ourselves? Who is "they", you keep asking about?

Is this an Industrial Union Leader trick question?
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #206
UPDATE!!!!

6852 Total Signed Election Authorization Cards
 
----------------
On 7/7/2003 7:44:37 PM RV4 wrote:




I don''t get it? The Union is the Membership, how do they approach themselves, er uh, how do we approach ourselves? Who is "they", you keep asking about?

Perhaps you should read up on the AMFA some more. According to a person who is represented at NWA by the AMFA, layoffs are not necessarily a requirement...if the membership decides that they should vote on concessions, then that vote will be allowed. So far, so good. So the vote is held and 51% of the members say "yes" to concessions. Are you still a happy camper, having had a "democratic vote" and all?

And while the membership is the union all right, AA would go broke trying to find a conference room big enough to hold the negotiating meetings between managment and "the union". Therefore, I''ll betcha a dollar that AMFA will have something called a "union leader" who will speak on behalf of the members, thus allowing meetings in an ordinary conference room.

So again...if AMFA is voted in and the union leader meets with managment and is shown mangements position that it is impossible to "shrink to profitablity" and that they feel concessions are a must, then it is the duty of that leader to report back to the members what has been said. At that point, they are asked if they want to pursue this - so there would be a vote, I imagine (there goes a little more of that precious time that you think the airline has scads of). And if the vote shows that the members want to consider concessions, and then negotiations are held and a proposal on concessions, is presented, again for a vote of the members (and that takes even more of that precisous time), and IF the vote goes 51% for concessions - are you willing to accept the voice of the members - all of whom are aircraft mechanics - or will you then begin a movement to oust AMFA and implement MWOTH (my way or the highway) to represent mechanics at AA?

Is this an Industrial Union Leader trick question?

No, it''s rather straightforward for all but the craft unionists apparently.

----------------​
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #208
----------------
On 7/7/2003 8:39:33 PM KCFlyer wrote:





So again...if AMFA is voted in and the union leader meets with managment and is shown mangements position that it is impossible to "shrink to profitablity" and that they feel concessions are a must, then it is the duty of that leader to report back to the members what has been said

----------------
​
For some strange reason, reality appears to show AA is indeed "shrinking to obtain profitability" in ADDITION to concessions.

And thus, the reality is that:

TWU, Jim Little, and Sonny Hall SUCK and need to be replaced!
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #209
I already told you!

I CAN accept a majorty rule decision. IF the vote is CREDIBLE! By Jim Little's own admission, the vote WAS NOT credible.

Can we now dispense with the hyptheticals and get back to reality?

TWU, Jim Little, and Sonny Hall suck and need to be replaced!

And it's not "my way or the highway", look at this...



UPDATE!!!!

6852 Total Signed Election Authorization Cards
 
KCFlyer:

I tire of your what ifs posting scheme. Since you have stated that you are not an employee of American or a member of the TWU or any other union, then you really have no idea about what is happening today nor what has happened in the past that has brought us to this point. This baiting is not going anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Airlines, Facing Cost Pressure, Outsource Crucial
2 3
Replies
32
Views
5K
AMFAMAN
A
C
January 11 Airline News
Replies
4
Views
2K
cubfan02us
C

Latest posts

Back
Top